Do you support a businesses right to ban guns(Poll added)

This is a discussion on Do you support a businesses right to ban guns(Poll added) within the General Firearm Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Suntzu, my point was to know how serius this charge could really be , I heard I can lose my gun, go out for auction, ...

Suntzu, my point was to know how serius this charge could really be , I heard I can lose my gun, go out for auction, arrest,fined..one crime is no differant than the other, etc....made it sound real serius like a felony , so im like WHY ??? Shouldnt it be differant for the reason I explained above ...misdomiener thats a good thing.i thought for a second that the law was being unreasonable here... Eddie

Senario: bad guy comes in to rob or kill, I the good guy defuse the situation bad guy runs anf leave pd arrives, should I be charged the same sa the bg because I broke the sign rules,we both broke the law.do u feel the law should be more leaneant toward me because of my heroric action?? I mean there were two differant intentions of gun use here, one was to kill or steal or both and the other was for saving lives, shouldnt the law be defferant...... Oppinoin only,.... Eddie

My experience with courts and law enforcement is that it will depend not on the letter of the law, but 99.999% your attitude. Even if you're technically in the wrong, law enforcement has some discretion to make judgement calls. A judge has considerably more discretion.

Keep your head and mind your Ps and Qs and find yourself on the favorable side of that discretion. Even if the law requires a criminal charge, plea deals can be reached, charges, sentences and fines reduced, and in some cases dismissed.

To disarm me without a proper and logical reason, no, I don't respect that at all. Not in the least. I thought this was made perfectly clear a long time ago. You must be new to the discussion so I'll reiterate:

I have a Basic Human Right to self defense which always and forever trumps your Civil right to operate a business regardless of the personal religious/political opinions of anyone else. This is also basic Army doctrine, that no order, statute or regulation ever deprives a Soldier of their right to self defense, and the only time we have to disarm is when we're in designated sensitive arias which have armed guards around them.

So you are saying in designated sensitive areas where you have armed guards you no longer have the right to defend yourself. You must stand there and suffer any and all assaultive behavior until the armed guards intervene. If that is not the case then you acknowledge that the right to self defense is not dependant on access to a weapon. No one is saying you can not defend yourself in a posted store. You just can't bring in a weapon with which to do it.

The only time I will ever give a no-gun sign the time of day is when it would brake a law. Otherwise it's just the ignorant religious/political musings of the property owner and in no way has any right or authority to deprive any person from otherwise lawful self defense.

It does not deprive anyone of a right to self defense. It denies them the privilege of legal access to that property.

No right is unlimited.

Including your right to self defense.

It's called the "Right to Public Access". This is how a licensed fisherman may walk onto your private residential coastline property against your expressed objection.

Not in Texas he can't.

Yes, this means that a if a person is legally fishing while legally carrying a gun, that person has the *right* to bring that gun onto your personal residential property against your expressed objection. If you stop that person you are braking the law. That doesn't mean the person can go allover your property, or brandish his gun, or just do whatever he wants on your property, but it does mean he may enter your property with a gun against your will.

Ooooh! Tell you what, I will post the opinions that say your mythical right of public access to my proeprty is B.S. and you can post your SCOTUS opinions that refute mine. Because frankly I don't think you can back your claim. No need for a song and dance and lame attempt at misdirection. Just cite the cases please.
Nollan v. California Coastal Commission 483 U.S. 825 in which the court held the state could not require a property owner to have a public easement on their property
Dolan v Tygard 512 U.S. 374 in which the court held the city could not force the property owner to maintain a public greenway on their property.
The Texas Supreme Court also said you are wrong just this year:High court upholds private property over public beach access | www.statesman.com
But aside from that access to beach is completely different from access to a place of business. Apples and oranges. And from your statement above it shows you do not even have a basic understanding of the laws regarding public beaches and private beach front property. In the states that do by statute guarantee public access to beaches there is also a legal standard as to where the beach ends and the private property begins. So while your theoretical fisherman can fish on the public beach between my property and the water, he can not fish on my property, carry a weapon on, or even be on my property without my permission.

This is how we're getting guns legalized to carry in grade schools and police stations. Take Oregon for example. It logically follows that a citizen who can lawfully carry a gun at all, should be able to carry that gun wherever the citizen can lawfully go. Exceptions require a demonstratable 'need', which Court Houses, ERs and polling stations can easily provide.

Property rights are vast, but they are not unlimited.

And just to satisfy my curiousity what is the easily provided demonstrable need for a polling place?
Please show a single SCOTUS case that says you have right to carry into someones private property over their objections. I don't believe you can find one.

This is true of the text format as well, be it an e-mail or memo, or how you compose a post. Take the post above this one, for example. The author chooses not to use the quote code, TrackBack tag, or proper grammar or sentence structure. There are no paragraphs, no quotes of sourced material, and the post contains overt baiting. This is in addition to the Unrepresentative Sample fallacy the meat of the post commits.

It's not likely I'll take a post like that very seriously at all. Rather than address that post's core argument, I'm likely just to pick something out of it I can use as a stepping-off point and go my own direction; or ignore the post completely.

As one of my former 1st Sergeants says: "Always represent yourself well."

This is true of the text format as well, be it an e-mail or memo, or how you compose a post. Take the post above this one, for example. The author chooses not to use the quote code, TrackBack tag, or proper grammar or sentence structure. There are no paragraphs, no quotes of sourced material, and the post contains overt baiting. This is in addition to the Unrepresentative Sample fallacy the meat of the post commits.

It's not likely I'll take a post like that very seriously at all. Rather than address that post's core argument, I'm likely just to pick something out of it I can use as a stepping-off point and go my own direction; or ignore the post completely.

As one of my former 1st Sergeants says: "Always represent yourself well."

And now you are reduced to the ad hominem.
As you can't cite any SCOTUS opinions to support your assertions and refute mine I guess that is about all you have left.

And now you are reduced to the ad hominem.
As you can't cite any SCOTUS opinions to support your assertions and refute mine I guess that is about all you have left.

You need to realize that the right of exclusion is not unlimited. It is impossible to discuss the specific merits and flaws of lawful gun carry in publicly accessible places until this fact is accepted by all participants.

That's what my entire point is, to demonstrate such limits.

Where one argument fails, I'll simply pick up another. We could go in the direction of Imminent Domain as another example of the right's limitations. Or Zoning Code if you would proffer. The right's limitations are many.

That's correct, because refusing a verbal request to leave is illegal.

Calling back to my example of a fisherman on private property: if my presence were in all ways peaceful and legal, I would not honor a no-guns or do-not-enter sign on private property while I'm fishing, nor would I leave if verbally asked. That does not mean I intend the owner any disrespect. I just want to peaceably continue about my business, harming no one (except the trout). That does not mean I'm going to become rude and belligerent. That does not mean I am going to litter, brandish or damage anything. It means the property owner is in the wrong for asking me to leave and needs to stop. I would not take the law into my own hands, I would call the police and let them handle it.

To me, walking past a no-gun sign on a business door is exactly the same as walking past a no-fishing sign on lake-front property. I am where I have a legal right to be, doing what I have a legal right to do, not harming anyone. Just as interfering with a fisherman is illegal, so should interfering with a lawful gun carrier.

So on top of trespassing, you are now adding poaching to your list of crimes...the fish that you take from a body of water after trespassing on someone else's property.

Regardless of what you may think, you do not have the right to go anywhere you want whenever you want while being armed however you want and to take whatever you want. But I'm sure you will argue the opposite.

Unfortunately for me, I work for company that does defense work, and therefore they have the right to not only ban firearms from work, but they are not even allowed on the property. I can't even leave my piece in the parking lot which means most of the week traveling to and from work I am unarmed.

I don't mind the restriction on bringing them into the facility, but I strongly disagree with the restriction on my ability to travel to work and back protected because I can't even have a firearm or ammo in the parking lot.

Why not just park offsite? And if this isn't an option, you can apply somewhere else. There is no restriction on your ability to travel to work and back, you just choose to park in their lot.